Dependent Origination

[whitewedding]

and I'm pretty sure that this stuff i call conciousness (citta) is what the Buddha call citta. Because firstly I become aware of it and then I consolidate it to a point (haven't actually got it to an actual stable point yet) - just like the Buddha says in the anapanasati sutta (or at least that the most obvious translation).

Could you point this out to me?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as I know, the Buddha doesn't talk about "cittas" all that much, other than as a general term for the mind. The theory of cittas is taken much further in Abhidhamma, though.

On a related note, as for the "nimitta", this is something that has essentially no significance and is not something essential as far as the suttas are concerned, as far as I have ever seen. Can you show anything to the contrary?

It's not actually awareness as I have said - It's quasi-awareness stuff

Can you back any of this up with sutta citations?

"Can't be described in words" is a cop-out. There's little in Buddhism that can't be described, save Nibbana itself.

"Ummm - actually I think it is in my experience" - I am not 100% sure because I can see the process for every single arising sensation."

If you'd read the suttas, I don't think you'd hold the view that vedana is dependent upon these nimitta only. Dependent origination has a wide breadth, from the moment-to-moment scale up to the inter-life perspective. It describes the process of samsara in general, all of our subjective experience, not just the narrow place you're boxing it in to.

My Sammatha teacher told me that insight meditation was done with nimmita so I was probably on the right path.

Maybe some form of insight meditation, but not any for that I've come across in the context of Buddhism. Take a look at the Satipatthana sutta, maybe.

If you want to learn about Buddhism, go read the suttas. I don't think you're very acquainted with them. If you want to go beyond the suttas into other areas of Buddhist thought is your choice, of course, but the suttas are a good foundation for any Buddhist.

"Could you point this out to me?" - it's stage 12 or something of anapanasati (not sure the exactly figure - you'll find it)

"Can't be described in words" is a cop-out" - cut the crap mate - of course it can't be described in words - the buddha could only say "it is that on which reality is based". Hardly any of Buddhism can be described in words - isn't that actually the moto of Zen. Cop out - what am I copping out from exactly - I'm not trying to persuade you I have these experiences or anything - you can believe me if you so wish - we're just having a debate about stuff these experiences are directly related to.

"If you'd read the suttas, I don't think you'd hold the view that vedana is dependent upon these nimitta only. Dependent origination has a wide breadth, from the moment-to-moment scale up to the inter-life perspective. It describes the process of samsara in general, all of our subjective experience, not just the narrow place you're boxing it in to."
The suttas say its dependent on nama-rupa. I am pretty sure that the nimmitas are nama - so yeah - they do.

"Maybe some form of insight meditation, but not any for that I've come across in the context of Buddhism. Take a look at the Satipatthana sutta, maybe. "
I have read the Satipatthana sutta. And yes - I am suggesting that you have come across it - these are called nama in vipassana (I'm pretty sure) and vipassana is meditation on nama rupa.
Also - I have several times seen the word "sign" (which is what the word nimmita is translated as) in the commentaries on insight meditation. They only call them nimmita in sammatha - it's a sign. Otherwise I believe Vipassana calls them nama - but it's the same thing I think.

Mate - These things lie at the heart of all my suffering - I have seen this. Hence it is clear to me that these things are very important. You can't persuade me otherwise unless you are actually properly a vipassana pro who meditates on nama-rupa (as I have argued above - your definition of nama wouldn't tie up).

"Can you back any of this up with sutta citations?"
No - He never describes the citta because it is beyond words - as I have said.

I'm going to bed now.
Night night,
Steve.

[whitewedding]

But actually - in my experience nimmita and (what I am pretty sure are) nama - are different things (hence the different names). Nimmita is many nama viewed as I consolidate thing (because it's sammatha) - what nimmita is composed of is little nama (seen in Vipassana).

[Kenshou]

And with regards to the nimmita/mind thing. I have read quite a few times that the nimmita represent the mind (you don't know how to interpret it so you do so by way of a sense) ontop of experiencing this directly. So no - I'm not having some weird meditation trip - the pros agree with me on this.

But does Gotama? You're still failing reference any of this.

Also - if nama is the mind-sense like you describe

I don't think I said this. To quote from a sutta I already quoted on what nama actually is:

""Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name(nama)."

If you do not know what this refers to, then go learn about the five aggregates.

...then it's quite contradictory when they say that vipassana done purely on any 1 of the sense doors can lead to enlightement but that vipassana is done simultaneously on nama-rupa.

I don't see what this has to do with what we've been talking about.

it's stage 12 or something of anapanasati

He trains himself, 'I will breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out releasing the mind.'

Doesn't sound like what you were talking about, "consolidating it to a single point".

the buddha could only say "it is that on which reality is based"

Source? I don't think so. The "base of reality" isn't an issue in Buddhism, Theravada anyway.

what am I copping out from exactly

Backing up your statements with coherent explanations and legitimate sources.

I am pretty sure that the nimmitas are nama - so yeah - they do.

We have passed this point and I continue to disagree. You haven't coherently defended this statement. They are mental experiences, yes, but nimitta does not equal nama, as a broad statement.

Also - I have several times seen the word "sign" (which is what the word nimmita is translated as) in the commentaries on insight meditation. They only call them nimmita in sammatha - it's a sign.

Yeah, the samatha nimitta is something that comes up in the commentaries and abhidhamma (though not the suttas), a phenomena that precedes full jhanic concentration. But that's a different thing entirely from vipassana, in that context.

Otherwise I believe Vipassana calls them nama - but it's the same thing I think

So you're saying that in the context of vipassana, nimitta = nama? I think you're incorrect, but I'll eat my words if you find a source which contradicts me.

You can't persuade me otherwise unless you are actually properly a vipassana pro who meditates on nama-rupa (as I have argued above - your definition of nama wouldn't tie up).

On the definition of nama, you've been putting words in my mouth. I haven't said that nama = the mind-sense. I've stated my position on what it is already.

No - He never describes the citta because it is beyond words - as I have said.

It most certainly isn't. I don't know where you get this from, but I invite you to show me a source.

I'm trying not to come off as rude, but I probably am anyway. You're taking concepts and ideas and words from all over the place and sticking them together however you want to, and it's difficult to make sense of. The fact that you don't back up any of this with other sources makes it even more difficult.

Good night.

[whitewedding]

OK - I can't answer to all of it because I have to go to bed.

I can't remember all the sources - I read them ages ago. Also - I'm not really pulling a load of words together to fit my meditation experience. It's rather like I developed the meditation (just how the Buddha says to) and suddenly all the words went click.
Also - In regard to you telling me to read the satipatthana sutta. Yes - I have read it and do what it says. It's in the part where I investigate the citta that the nimmitas suddenly appear (they are the attractive forces in my consciousness) - so yes - I do think that the satipatthana sutta directs you into becoming aware of nimmita.


Have a look into the nimmita (if you like) - see if you see what I see. I'd like to know. Accumulating nimmita to a point (which in my experience requires doing sati to surf them (which is looking into them with periphery awareness) (by doing this you will automatically become aware of what I call the citta - it has a 1 to 1 correspondence with the nimmita (just as sensation does - but you need to be doing simultaneous sati on sensations to see this (took me a few days to be able to do both at once))) will cause a rapid development in concentration anyway (because they are very attractive) so it's a worthwhile thing to learn to do anyway - you start to do sammatha on a point in space rather than on the breath (sorry if you already do this).

Take care,
Steve.

[Kenshou]

Well, in short, I simply don't agree with your approach. I stopped thinking about "nimittas" of any sort a long time ago. My preference is to stick to the suttas to the best of my ability, and I find this worthwhile. I don't find your views consistent with the suttas nor other Theravada literature to the extent than I am familiar with it. But, I can let it be.

The main reason I constantly ask for other sources is because it would be easier to put together exactly what you are talking about if I was able to get an explanation of it from another perspective. Because honestly, your terms aren't consistent. But we're obviously speaking from different perspectives and this complicates effective discussion.

If what you're doing helps you defeat craving, aversion, and delusion, then go for it.

[whitewedding]

But I do stick to the suttas (although they have been translated in many different ways so obviously no one knows for sure the techniques given in them) - and this is what happens for me. I don't know how my terms aren't consistent - they seem to be entirely consistent to me.
Yeah - I think it does help me defeat craving, aversion and delusion (I have a much clearer perspective on both craving and aversion by doing this).

This is the message I was going to write but then you wrote yours which stopped me posting it up...

Also - by learning to surf the nimmita/citta you will find that you have an incredible multidimensional level of control to your mind. If you learn dynamic movement of the point you'll be able to use it to break through the walls of your consciousness and blast all sensation into particles. You'll be able to use the incredible multidimensional awareness/citta to become aware of parts of your body you couldn't otherwise reach.
So yeah - it's a good thing to learn to do anyway. But if you learn to do it - promise me you'll have a look out for the stuff that I've been talking about (you'll probably actually see the stuff I'm talking about as soon as you start blasting sensation up into particles anyway (the trick I found to do this roll round the walls of aversion (you'll see what I mean by this when you use this stuff to investigate pain), then the pain will split into smaller quasi-particles of pain. Doing the same thing on these but on a much smaller scale will cut round them like a laser and totally particulate it - from the nimmita angle it will seem as though light is bursting out of the pain)).
NB - i don't actually know if blasting up things into particles is the right way to go so I don't actually do it anymore. But it was pretty fun and massively deepens your insight into the 3 characteristics.

Take care,
Steve.

[whitewedding]

Oh - I've found a good way to describe what I think is the citta...

It is like loads and loads and loads of planes of focus (not awareness - focus - that's the right word).
The nimmitas are then contained in these planes of focus - each nimmita corresponding to a particular sensations.

So as soon as I do sati on the citta like the sutta says (this is what I described as surfing the nimmita), whilst doing sati on my body (like the sutta says) I am automatically seeing all the stuff I'm talking about. Then I consolidate the citta to a point (buddha says in anapanasati sutta: centering the citta in samedhi) I see in incredible detail the nimmita and corresponding sensations.
So you see - I have just been doing exactly (at least in my interpretation) what the suttas say.

Steve.

[Kenshou]

I continue to disagree with your interpretation. I think you're making it all a hell of a lot more complicated than it needs to be, adding things that don't need to be added.

But anyway, if it works for you, then alright. That's all I can say.

[whitewedding]

I have found the perfect quote and thanks to this I now know I'm right and that what I experience as citta is actually citta:

Page 202 of "Mastering the core teachings of the buddha":

"Further, as the sensations are observed including the crude mental impression that follows them ("conciousness"), the whole of the mind and body process is not a separate self."

Now by mental impression he's not talking about any imagination of the sensation (because he regards that as sensation) - he's talking about what i'm talking about. When my mind is not centred the nimmita appears to "follow it" as he says, but when my mind is centred I see them arise together - as one. As I said - the nimmita is in the citta - so he is definining citta how I'm defining citta."

Yey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He also later talks of kama formations as little pictures like I experience (although he says they have all senses in them simultaneously - I guess I am nowhere near the level to see them that clearly yet though (apparently I have to go through hell and out the other side before I can properly meditate on them).

Yey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[whitewedding]

And - from this quote we can automatically derive that the nimmita are in fact nama. He is talking about vipassana being concentrating both on the object and the crude mental impression following it, and vipassana is described as the meditation on nama-rupa.

Cheers for your skepticism man - it made me find my quote.

NB/ This book is far more detailed than anything else I have read - http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kenshou]

Hey now, don't assume that I agree. The suttas are one thing, Daniel Ingram is quite another. I'm not a fan of his really, but that's just my stance.

I'm glad that you've found an outside source. I think I understand better now what you're talking about, the process of mental impressions and reactions. I don't have Daniels book in print, but if possible could you point out that relevant bit in the online version so that I could see it in context?

I think the core of the breakdown in communication is your use of the terms nimitta and citta. As http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/citta.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says, citta and vinnana (consciousness) can be synonyms sometimes, so I can't accuse you of misusing that. It's possible that we've been using it differently.

I have been using citta to mean the general state of the mind. I think you've been using it differently, but I'm still not clear exactly what meaning you intend. If you could find a definition that suits you and show me, I might get a better idea. If we explicitly define our terms, it might clear up some of the confusion.

As for nimitta, take a look at the definitions here and tell me if one fits what you intend your use to signify: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nimitta.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; As far as I can tell, your usage doesn't really match up, but you can clarify if you want.

And as for nama: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/naama.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This term is generally used as a collective name for the 4 mental groups (arūpino khandha), viz.

feeling (vedanā),
perception (saññā),
mental formations (sankhāra) and
consciousness (viññāna).

This matches what I had previously said. Nama =/= nimitta =/= citta. EDIT: Actually, for practical purposes I think it is okay for us to equate nama and citta. I tend to understand citta as more of the overall general flavour of the mind, this is how the satipatthana sutta uses it I believe (someone correct me it not), and nama refers more specifically to the various processes of the mind and not the whole. But they're similar enough that we can call them the same. The real issue is, that nimitta does not correspond to either of them. Your assertion that nimitta equals nama doesn't hold up as far as I can tell.

[Anicca]

Greetings!

Help me out here -
How come when searching Daniel's book nimmita & citta return 0 finds? How does he spell them in the book?

Metta

[Kenshou]

I haven't read it for awhile, but as far as I can recall, he doesn't use them at all.

[Anicca]

I haven't read it for awhile, but as far as I can recall, he doesn't use them at all.

[Ben]

I wouldn't worry about Anicca.

I highly recommend Venerable Analayo's Satipatthana: the direct path to realization
Its brilliant.
metta

Ben